Water-holding Capacity of Litter and Soil in Three Kinds of Soil and Water Conservation Forests in Taihang Mountains of Hebei Province

PANG Mengli; ZHU Chenguang; ZHAI Bochao; QU Yu

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.01.009

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Water-holding Capacity of Litter and Soil in Three Kinds of Soil and Water Conservation Forests in Taihang Mountains of Hebei Province

- Water-holding Capacity of Litter and Soil in Three Kinds of Soil and Water Conservation Forests in Taihang Mountains of Hebei Province
- Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation Vol. 37, Issue 1, Pages: 51-56(2017)
- 作者机构：
  
  河北农业大学林学院,河北,保定,071000
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.01.009
  CLC：
- Published：2017
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
PANG Mengli, ZHU Chenguang, ZHAI Bochao, et al. Water-holding Capacity of Litter and Soil in Three Kinds of Soil and Water Conservation Forests in Taihang Mountains of Hebei Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2017, 37(1): 51-56.
DOI：

PANG Mengli, ZHU Chenguang, ZHAI Bochao, et al. Water-holding Capacity of Litter and Soil in Three Kinds of Soil and Water Conservation Forests in Taihang Mountains of Hebei Province[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2017, 37(1): 51-56. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.01.009.

摘要

[目的

]

揭示人工水土保持林林下枯落物以及土壤持水特征，为太行山区水土保持林的建造和规划提供理论依据。[方法

]

运用烘干法，室内浸泡法，环刀法等得出不同林分林下枯落物蓄积量、持水量、吸水速率、最大持水能力和拦蓄量，比较了不同林分枯落物和土壤的持水能力。[结果

]

枯落物总储量范围为9.96～19.19 t/hm

，表现为栓皮栎林总储量最大，荒坡总储量最小。枯落物最大持水量变化范围为23.76～66.72 t/hm

，栓皮栎—侧柏混交林最大，荒坡最小。栓皮栎—侧柏混交林有效拦蓄量可达51.50 t/hm

，在各林分中最大；荒坡有效拦蓄量为19.55 t/hm

，在各林分中最小。枯落物持水量、吸水速率均与浸泡时间呈相关关系，前者为对数关系（

> 0.97），后者为幂函数关系（

> 0.98）。各林分土壤容重均值介于1.14～1.55 g/cm

，总孔隙度介于38.62%～43.76%。各林分土壤有效持水量表现为：刺槐林> 栓皮栎—侧柏混交林> 栓皮栎林> 荒坡，其中刺槐林最大（为106.85 t/hm

），荒坡最小（为89.37 t/hm

）。[结论

]

水土保持林持水能力远大于荒坡。

Abstract

[Objective] The objective of this study is to investigate the water-holding capacity of litter and soil and to provide support for planning and planting soil and water conservation forests in Taihang Mountains. [Methods] Drying method

indoor soaking and cutting ring method were used to determine the water holding capacity by litter and soil in different kinds of forest stands. [Results] The total storage by litter ranged from 9.96 t/hm2 to 19.19 t/hm2. The maximum water-holding volume of different forests was about 23.76 t/hm2 to 66.72 t/hm2

the order was Quercus variabilis and Platycladus orientalis mixed forest >Q. variabilis forest >Robinia pseudoacacia forest> controlled forestland. The maximum effective retaining water of litter occured in Q. variabilis and P. orientalis mixed forest while the minimum in controlled forestland. The water-holding capacity of litters and immersion time had visible logarithmic relationship(R>0.97)

whereas the litter absorption rate and immersion time followed an exponential relationship(R>0.98). Soil bulk desity was about 1.14 g/cm3 to 1.55 g/cm3

the total porosity ranged from 38.62% to 43.76%. The order of effective water-holding capacity of soil in these forests was R. pseudoacacia forest>Q. variabilis and P. orientalis mixed forest>Q. variabilis forest>controlled forestland( maximum in R. pseudoacacia 106.85 t/hm2

while minimum in controlled forest land 89.37 t/hm2). [Conclusion] The water holding capacity of forest lands was much better than controlled forestland.

关键词

Keywords

references

孙一荣,朱教君,于立忠,等.森林枯落物的水源涵养功能[C]//中国环境科学学会学术年会论文集.武汉:中国环境科学学会,2009:619-626.

彭玉华.老虎岭库区不同林型凋落物特征[J].中国水土保持,2015(6):56-59.

Tamai K, Abe T, Araki M, et al. Radiation budget, soil heat flux and latent heat flux at the forest floor in warm, temperate mixed forest[J]. Hydrological processes, 1998,12(13/14):2105-2114.

沈盈佳,曾建军.保山北庙水库集水区5种森林类型枯落物持水特性研究[J].长江科学院院报,2015,32(1):43-48.

张淑兰,张海军,张武,等.小兴安岭不同森林类型枯落物储量及其持水特性比较[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(4):85-90.

徐娟,余新晓.北京十三陵不同林分枯落物层和土壤层水文效应研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(3):189-193.

张雷燕,刘常富,王彦辉,等.宁夏六盘山南侧森林枯落物及土壤的水文生态功能研究[J].林业科学研究,2007,20(1):15-20.

Sato Y, Kumagai T, Kume A, et al. Experimental analysis of moisture dynamics of litter layers: The effects of rainfall conditions and leaf shapes[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2004,18(16):3007-3018.

韩友志,邢兆凯,顾宇书,等.浑河上游白桦冷杉等4种林分枯落物储量及持水特性[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(11):15-18.

贾剑波,刘文娜,余新晓,等.半城子流域3种林地枯落物的持水能力[J].中国水土保持学报,2015,13(6):26-32.

Zhang Deqiang, Hui Dafeng, Luo Yiqi, et al. Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: Global patterns and controlling factors[J]. Journal of Plant Ecology, 2008,1(2):85-93.

贾黎明,方陆明,胡延杰.杨树刺槐混交林及纯林枯落叶分解[J].应用生态学报,1998,9(5):463-467.

李强,周道玮,陈笑莹.地上枯落物的累积、分解及其在陆地生态系统中的作用[J].生态学报,2014,34(14):3807-3819.

Berg B, Steffen K T, McClaugherty C. Litter decomposition rate is dependent on litter Mn concentrations[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2007,82(1):29-39.

潘春翔,李裕元,彭亿,等.湖南乌云界自然保护区典型生态系统的土壤持水性能[J].生态学报,2012,32(2):538-547.

鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.北京山地不同海拔人工油松林枯落物及其土壤水文效应[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(6):54-58.

赵雨森,韩春华,张宏光,等.阿什河上游小流域主要林分类型土壤水文功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(2):203-208.

饶良懿,朱金兆,毕华兴.重庆四面山森林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(1):33-37.

赵建生,王永明,杨新兵.冀北山地森林土壤水文效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(3):201-205.

陈东莉,郭晋平,杜宁宁.间伐强度对华北落叶松林下生物多样性的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(4):37-38.

Views

1208

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Hydrological Effects of Forest Litters and Soil in Pinus Tabulaeformis Plantation Under Different Degrees of Canopy Coverage in Taiyue Mountains

Effects of Litters in Cork Oak Stands on Water Movement of Soil-Plant System

Hydrological Characteristics of Planted Forest Litters and Soil in Northern Mountains of Lanzhou City

Water-holding Capacity of Litters and Soil in Different Forests in Disanxiang Forest Farm of Chengde City

Soil Water Infiltration Characteristics and Its Influencing Factors in Different Landscape Types in Water Source Area of Hani Terrace

Related Author

CHENG Xiao-qin

ZHOU Bin

YU Xiao-wen

HAN Hai-rong

KANG Feng-feng

SONG Xiao-shuai

WANG Weiwei

ZHAO Jinmei

Related Institution

Key Laboratory of Forest Cultivation and Conservation of the Ministry of Education and the Province, Beijing Forestry University

China Railway Fifth Survey and Design Institute Group Co. Ltd

College of Forestry, Gansu Agricultural University

College of Forest, Agricultural University of Hebei

School of Tourism and Geographical Sciences, Yunnan Normal University

⁰